Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byEric Nurse Modified over 2 years ago

1
Web Science & Technologies University of Koblenz ▪ Landau, Germany Advanced Data Modeling Minimal Models Steffen Staab TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual before you delete this box.: A A AAA

2
Steffen Staab staab@uni-koblenz.de Advanced Data Modeling 2 of 37 WeST Overview Logic as query language. Grounding. Minimal Herbrand models. Completion.

3
Steffen Staab staab@uni-koblenz.de Advanced Data Modeling 3 of 37 WeST Logic as query language Given: first-order formula A[x 1, …, x n ] Herbrand interpretation I This first-order formula can be considered as a definition of a relation R A on T n § as follows: (t 1, …, t n ) 2 R A := I ² A[t 1, …, t n ]

4
Steffen Staab staab@uni-koblenz.de Advanced Data Modeling 4 of 37 WeST Clauses as definitions We say that a clause p(t 1, …, t m ) :- L 1, …, L n defines the relation symbol p. Let C be a set of clauses and p be a relation symbol. We call the definition of p in C the set of all clauses in C that define p.

5
Steffen Staab staab@uni-koblenz.de Advanced Data Modeling 5 of 37 WeST Principles of semantics A deductive database is a set of clauses. This set of clauses is regarded as a collection of definitions of relations. The semantics defines the meaning of this definitions by associating with them an interpretation, or a class of interpretations. Query answering is based on the semantics.

6
Steffen Staab staab@uni-koblenz.de Advanced Data Modeling 6 of 37 WeST Two key assumptions the unique name assumption: each name denotes a unique object. the closed world assumption: a negative statement : A holds if the corresponding positive one A does not hold. Both assumptions are not supported by (Tarskian) models for first-order logics (why not?) One solution: minimal models

7
Steffen Staab staab@uni-koblenz.de Advanced Data Modeling 7 of 37 WeST Minimal Herbrand Models Let I be a Herbrand model of a set of formulas S. We call I a minimal Herbrand model of S if it is minimal w.r.t. the subset relation, i.e. for every Herbrand model I´of S of the same signature we have I´ ¶ I. I is called the least Herbrand model of S if for every Herbrand model I´ of S of the same signature we have I µ I´.

8
Steffen Staab staab@uni-koblenz.de Advanced Data Modeling 8 of 37 WeST Does every set of formulas S have a least Herbrand model?

9
Steffen Staab staab@uni-koblenz.de Advanced Data Modeling 9 of 37 WeST Does every set of formulas S have a least Herbrand model? Counterexample for normal clauses: person(a). man(X) :- person(X), not woman(X). woman(X) :- person(X), not man(X).

10
Steffen Staab staab@uni-koblenz.de Advanced Data Modeling 10 of 37 WeST Does every set of formulas S have a least Herbrand model? What about definite clauses?

11
Steffen Staab staab@uni-koblenz.de Advanced Data Modeling 11 of 37 WeST Instance and variant Let E, E´ be a pair of terms or formulas. E´ is an instance of E, denoted E > E´, if there exists a substitution µ such that E µ = E´. ground instance: instance that is ground, E´ is a variant of E if E´ is an instance of E and E is an instance of E´.

12
Steffen Staab staab@uni-koblenz.de Advanced Data Modeling 12 of 37 WeST Examples P(x,a) is instance of P(x,y) because of P(x,y)[y|a] P(b,a) is a ground instance P(x,y) and P(u,v) are variants of each other, because of [x|u, y|v] and [u|x, v|y]

13
Steffen Staab staab@uni-koblenz.de Advanced Data Modeling 13 of 37 WeST Grounding Let C be a set of clauses and § be any signature containing all symbols used in C. The grounding of C w.r.t. §, denoted C * is the set of all ground instances of the signature § of clauses in C. Lemma. Let I be a Herbrand interpretation and C be a set of clauses. Then I ² C if and only if I ² C *.

14
Steffen Staab staab@uni-koblenz.de Advanced Data Modeling 14 of 37 WeST General proof scheme First order formula (all possible ways of) grounding Propositional formula Propositional Consequences First order Consequences lifting calculus

15
Steffen Staab staab@uni-koblenz.de Advanced Data Modeling 15 of 37 WeST Proof

16
Steffen Staab staab@uni-koblenz.de Advanced Data Modeling 16 of 37 WeST Logic with equality Additional atomic formulas s = t, where s, t are terms. Abbreviation: x y := : (x = y). Unlike other relations, the semantics of s = t is predefined in all Herbrand interpretations: I ² s = t if s coincides with t.

17
Steffen Staab staab@uni-koblenz.de Advanced Data Modeling 17 of 37 WeST Example valid formulas f(x 1, …, x n ) = f(y 1, … y n ) ! x 1 = y 1 Æ … Æ x n = y n f(x 1, …, x n ) g(y 1, …, y n ) f(x 1, …,x n ) c d c A[t] $ 8 x(x = t ! A[x])

18
Steffen Staab staab@uni-koblenz.de Advanced Data Modeling 18 of 37 WeST Semantics of definitions Consider a definition of a relation r What is the meaning of this definition? Is there a largest Herbrand model? Especially in the light of negation as failure?

19
Steffen Staab staab@uni-koblenz.de Advanced Data Modeling 19 of 37 WeST Idea of completion man(hans). man(adam). person(eva). woman(X) :- person(X), not man(X). Is eva a woman? She might be a man and we just don‘t know! Minimal model says that she is not a woman! Trick: Completion: man(X) $ (X=hans Ç X=adam). woman(X) $ X=eva. I.e. hans and adam are the only men.

20
Steffen Staab staab@uni-koblenz.de Advanced Data Modeling 20 of 37 WeST Idea of Completion man(hans). man(X) :- lovesBeer(X,Y). Completion: man(X) $ X=hans Ç ( 9 Y: X=U Æ lovesBeer(U,Y)) A man is a man only if he is hans or if he loves some brand of beer.

21
Steffen Staab staab@uni-koblenz.de Advanced Data Modeling 21 of 37 WeST Completion. Step 1. Replace every clause by an equivalent one such that the arguments of r are x 1, …, x n : Given: r(t 1, …, t n ) :- G Replace by: r(x 1, …, x n ) :- x 1 = t 1 Æ … Æ x n = t n Æ G

22
Steffen Staab staab@uni-koblenz.de Advanced Data Modeling 22 of 37 WeST Completion. Step 2. If there are variables y 1, …, y k occurring in a body but not in the head, apply 9 to these variables, i.e., Given r(x 1, …, x n ) :- G Modify to r(x 1, …, x n ) :- 9 y 1 … 9 y k G

23
Steffen Staab staab@uni-koblenz.de Advanced Data Modeling 23 of 37 WeST Completion. Step 3. If there are several definitions, replace them by one Given r(x 1, …,x n ) :- G 1 … r(x 1, …, x n ) :- G m Replace by r(x 1, …, x n ) :- G 1 Ç … Ç G m

24
Steffen Staab staab@uni-koblenz.de Advanced Data Modeling 24 of 37 WeST Completion. Step 4. Replace :- by $ : Given r(x 1, …, x n ) :- G 1 Ç … Ç G m Replace by r(x 1, …, x n ) $ G 1 Ç … Ç G m The formula r(x 1, …, x n ) $ G 1 Ç … Ç G m is called the completed definition of the original set of clauses.

25
Steffen Staab staab@uni-koblenz.de Advanced Data Modeling 25 of 37 WeST Example r(u,v):-p(u,1,z). r(v,u):-p(2,u,z). r(x,y) :- x=u Æ y=v Æ p(u,1,z). r(x,y) :- x=v Æ y=u Æ p(2,v,z). r(x,y) :- 9 z,u,v x=u Æ y=v Æ p(u,1,z). r(x,y) :- 9 z,u,v x=u Æ y=v Æ p(2,v,z). r(x,y) $ ( 9 z,u,v x=u Æ y=v Æ p(u,1,z)) Ç ( 9 z,u,v x=u Æ y=v Æ p(2,v,z))

26
Steffen Staab staab@uni-koblenz.de Advanced Data Modeling 26 of 37 WeST Properties All steps preserve Herbrand models, except for the last one. Why? Gives a unique semantics to non-recursive definitions What about recursive definitions? Logic programming semantics and first-order semantics coincide for definite programs

27
Steffen Staab staab@uni-koblenz.de Advanced Data Modeling 27 of 37 WeST Recursive definitions odd(1). even(f(X)) :- odd(X). odd(f(X)) :- even(X). Completion: odd(X) $ X=1 Ç (X=f(Y) Æ even(Y)). even(X) $ X=f(Y) Æ odd(Y).

28
Steffen Staab staab@uni-koblenz.de Advanced Data Modeling 28 of 37 WeST Recursive definitions person(adam). person(eva). woman(X) :- person(X), not man(X). man(X) :- person(X), not woman(X). Completion: woman(X) $ (Y=X Æ person(Y) Æ not man(Y)). man(X) $ (Y=X Æ person(Y) Æ not woman(Y)). Semantics not unique in logic programming: Models are I={woman(adam),woman(eva)} I={man(adam),man(eva)} I={woman(adam),man(eva)} I={man(adam),woman(eva)} What is the semantics in first order logics?

29
Steffen Staab staab@uni-koblenz.de Advanced Data Modeling 29 of 37 WeST Recursive definitions person(adam). person(eva). woman(X) :- person(X), not man(X). man(X) :- person(X), not woman(X). Completion: woman(X) $ (Y=X Æ person(Y) Æ not man(Y)). man(X) $ (Y=X Æ person(Y) Æ not woman(Y)). Semantics not unique in logic programming: Models are (add {person(adam),person(eva)} to each) I={woman(adam),woman(eva)} I={man(adam),man(eva)} I={woman(adam),man(eva)} I={man(adam),woman(eva)} What is the semantics in first order logics? Models are: woman I ={}=man I

30
Steffen Staab staab@uni-koblenz.de Advanced Data Modeling 30 of 37 WeST Simple characterization of completion Let C be a definition of r, I be a Herbrand model of the corresponding completed definition, and r(t 1, …, t n ) be a ground atom. Then I ² r(t 1, …, t n ), 9 (r(t 1, …, t n ) :- L 1, …, L m ) 2 C * (I ² L 1 Æ … Æ L n ):

31
Steffen Staab staab@uni-koblenz.de Advanced Data Modeling 31 of 37 WeST Immediate consequence operator T C (I) := { A | there exists (A :- G) 2 C * such that I ² G } Fixpoint: an interpretation such that T C (I) = I.

32
Steffen Staab staab@uni-koblenz.de Advanced Data Modeling 32 of 37 WeST Definite clauses have the least model Let C be a set of definite clauses. Define I 0 := {} I n+1 := T C (I n ), for all n ¸ 0, I ! := [ ! i=0 I i Then I ! is the least fixpoint of T C and also the least Herbrand model of C.

33
Steffen Staab staab@uni-koblenz.de Advanced Data Modeling 33 of 37 WeST Non-recursive databases Let C be a non-recursive database and K be an arbitrary interpretation. Define I 0 := K I n+1 := T C (I n ), for all n ¸ 0, I ! := [ ! i=0 I i Then I ! is the only fixpoint of T C. Moreover, for some n we have I ! = I n.

34
Steffen Staab staab@uni-koblenz.de Advanced Data Modeling 34 of 37 WeST Non-recursive sets of clauses Let C be a set of clauses. Its dependency graph consists of pairs p ! r such that p occurs in the body of a clause which defines r in C. A set of clauses is non-recursive if the dependency graph contains no cycles.

35
Steffen Staab staab@uni-koblenz.de Advanced Data Modeling 35 of 37 WeST Non-recursive sets of clauses Let C be a set of clauses. Its dependency graph consists of pairs p ! r such that p occurs in the body of a clause which defines r in C. A set of clauses is non-recursive if the dependency graph contains no cycles. Person(a). Woman(X) :- Person(X), Not Man(X). Man(X) :- Person(X), Not Woman(X). WomanMan Person

36
Steffen Staab staab@uni-koblenz.de Advanced Data Modeling 36 of 37 WeST Non-recursive sets of clauses Dependency graph of C consists of pairs p ! r such that p occurs in the body of a clause which defines r in C. C is non-recursive if the dependency graph contains no cycles. A relation p depends on a relation q in C if there exists a path of length ¸ 1 from q to p in the dependency graph of C. A set of clauses is non-recursive if and only if no relation depends on itself.

Similar presentations

© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google